D&D 5E What actions by a PC Don't need to be stated?

[Shasarak]

Because the character is smarter than you and just knows it, don't ya know? No need to state actions.

My character is not smarter then me but he is better looking. Most of the time he just skates through on his natural charm.

 

[iserith]

Which is why it's called Difficulty Rating instead of Challenge Rating? 5e doesn't have quite so precise a jargon as all that.

I imagine conflation happens because "challenging" can refer to difficulty. As game concepts, challenge and difficulty are pretty important distinctions.

Characterizing 'gaming the DM' is black-and-white 'wrong' is like claiming that 'optimizing' is black-and-white wrong. It's a facile way to excuse a system's vulnerability to the tactic, but in no way helpful in remedying that vulnerability. And it defames styles of play and promotes divisiveness. If you're running 3.x, you should be aware it heavily rewards system mastery, if you're running 5e, you should be aware of your responsibility in using all that Empowerment.

This feels to me a lot like wrapping tired old edition war terms in a +1 cloak of playstyle protection. I'm not buying it, sorry. I stand by my statement that "gaming the DM" is bad-faith play.

 

[Harzel]

Again, I advocate reasonable specificity i.e. a clear goal and approach to that goal. "I want my paladin to negotiate for the release of the prisoners..." is insufficient in my view. How do you go about that? What leverage do you have? What do you have to offer in exchange for the prisoners? etc. More reasonable detail may be required of the ranger's or wizard's players depending on the situation. Context will tell.

Do you require your players to be more specific than, "I attack the orc with my longsword" ? If not, then it seems like there is a distinction here that has not been unpacked. (And I say this, by the way, as someone who, like you, would require more specificity from the negotiating paladin, though I doubt that I would from the wizard or the ranger. And although it seems to mostly work out ok, the implied distinctions do make me wonder exactly what justification or internal rule I am using.)

 

[iserith]

Do you require your players to be more specific than, "I attack the orc with my longsword" ? If not, then it seems like there is a distinction here that has not been unpacked. (And I say this, by the way, as someone who, like you, would require more specificity from the negotiating paladin, though I doubt that I would from the wizard or the ranger. And although it seems to mostly work out ok, the implied distinctions do make me wonder exactly what justification or internal rule I am using.)

Sometimes, yes, I do ask for more specificity in combat, when it's necessary just as with the paladin trying to negotiate. Oftentimes the player will offer that up themselves if what they want to do is somehow different than normal. "I attack the orc with my longsword..." is actually just a statement of approach. It doesn't specify a goal. We can assume (probably correctly most of the time) that the goal is to kill the orc, right? But what if the PC doesn't want to kill the orc and instead wants to knock it out? Or just draw some blood as a pretext to intimidating it into submission? Those are things that obviously need to be clarified by the player when describing what he or she wants to do so that the DM doesn't make bad assumptions. In practice, for most people I bet, the goal goes unstated because it's obvious.

Lacking any additional context, "I try to negotiate for the release of the prisoners..." is like saying "I try to kill the orc..." Okay - how?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I imagine conflation happens because "challenging" can refer to difficulty. As game concepts, challenge and difficulty are pretty important distinctions.

Go ahead and expand on that distinction if you think it's not too far off topic.

This feels to me a lot like wrapping tired old edition war terms in a +1 cloak of playstyle protection.

Heck, 'playstyle' was a term used a lot in the edition war.

I'm not buying it, sorry. Hey, if you want to suggest that people should ignore what I have to say because I was an edition warrior, I'll vaguely suggest that you should be ignored as an apologist. Yippee. Are we both having fun in the muck now?

I stand by my statement that "gaming the DM" is bad-faith play.

So it can't be taken into account or acknowledged? You can stand there if you like.

 

[iserith]

Go ahead and expand on that distinction if you think it's not too far off topic.

Challenge is something you can win or lose based on your choices. Difficulty is how likely or unlikely your odds of success.

Heck, 'playstyle' was a term used a lot in the edition war.

I dislike that word, too.

Hey, if you want to suggest that people should ignore what I have to say because I was an edition warrior, I'll vaguely suggest that you should be ignored as an apologist. Yippee. Are we both having fun in the muck now?

I think you have a lot of great things to say and people should listen to you. I just wish you'd finally shed the rest of your edition-warrior mantle. Because we can still see it and it undermines you from time to time in my view.

 

[robus]

Do you require your players to be more specific than, "I attack the orc with my longsword" ? If not, then it seems like there is a distinction here that has not been unpacked. (And I say this, by the way, as someone who, like you, would require more specificity from the negotiating paladin, though I doubt that I would from the wizard or the ranger. And although it seems to mostly work out ok, the implied distinctions do make me wonder exactly what justification or internal rule I am using.)

The stakes in combat are often quite clear. It's kill or be killed. (Or at least be the party that doesn't run off with its tail between its legs ) . Thus the goal has really been established once initiative has been rolled. Restating that goal on every turn would become tedious at best. But of course the goal can change "wait, we need to take a prisoner!" During combat and then the approach changes to support that "I knock him out instead of killing him"

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just wish you'd finally shed the rest of your edition-warrior mantle.

I'm not one for revisionist history - the edition war happened, I'm not going to pretend it didn't, or kid myself that it's had no influence nor repercussions.

Challenge is something you can win or lose based on your choices. Difficulty is how likely or unlikely your odds of success.

OK... So, when someone said "Old-school challenged the players, 'new'-school changes the characters," did you really think he meant to imply that characters make choices independent of the player?
It didn't occur to you that he might be using 'challenges' in a slightly different sense than you prefer?

 

[robus]

Hey you guys - perhaps time to step away for a bit?

You're both great contributors here, but no one ever comes out looking good in these battles

 

[iserith]

I'm not one for revisionist history - the edition war happened, I'm not going to pretend it didn't, or kid myself that it's had no influence nor repercussions.

Fair enough. I'm moving past it.

OK... So, when someone said "Old-school challenged the players, 'new'-school changes the characters," did you really think he meant to imply that characters make choices independent of the player?
It didn't occur to you that he might be using 'challenges' in a slightly different sense than you prefer?

If that poster wants to clarify, he or she is welcome to. I still disagree that "new school challenges the characters." It doesn't make any sense to me, even though I've heard words to that effect many times over.